by Steve Risner
Last week, I began a wrap-up to a series of questions posed by a man whose beliefs on creation/evolution are anti-biblical. His questions were intended to show just how foolish “young earth creationism” is (when, in reality, the correct term would be Biblical creationist since we don't care about the age of the earth but about the Bible). This is the second part of that wrap-up. You can find the first part here.
So, the next tired argument from deep time proponents is that of the conspiracy theory. “Have all the scientists and world governments conspired to discredit the Bible and turn people toward atheism?” Of course not. They're just incorrect in their starting assumptions. This is not to say they're wrong about everything. But if your starting premise in incorrect, it's very unlikely the rest of your data and how you interpret it will follow a path to the truth. It's just the way it works. You'll view all the data in light of this false foundational idea and build from there. It's easy to fit the information we have into a false narrative. People do it all the time and there's no reason to believe science is any different because, frankly, we're not talking about a scientific topic. We're talking about history and you can make up any tale you want, throwing some scientific jargon in here and there—like Star Trek is in the future.
What I believe is true in this matter—that of the strawman idea that Biblical creationists believe there's some worldwide conspiracy—is a little different than most talk about. You see, most of those who are professional scientists—they work in scientific disciplines and do work regarding it (although we're not exclusively talking about them but laypersons as well) have been so deeply entrenched in this thought process that they cannot see another way. They are actually blinded to alternative explanations and cannot see the blind bias they have. Blind bias is far more dangerous than intentional bias because you don't even know it's happening or that you're blinded by your bias. They literally cannot see it. It's dangerous and unfortunate. All the while they tell you how bad they feel for you because you've been brainwashed when, in reality, that's very uncommon in the Biblical creationist scene. But it seems very hard to find a follower of the humanist origins myth who's not been indoctrinated into it, rendering them incapable of honestly viewing alternative explanations for the data.
We do know without any doubt that there were very influential men who pushed their ideas about geology simply to discredit the Bible. This is a fact; it's not just my opinion. So, if removing the Bible from geology was the intended purpose in generating deep time, doesn't it follow that if the Bible is actually history and the Flood was actually global, that anything that develops from a foundation without this at its core would be wrong? Is it a conspiracy? I believe some in the past (and many likely now) do hate God and want to do all they can to discredit His Word and belief in Him, so they will seek out ways to fit the data to this desired result. However, there are many who, because they've been taught this foundation of no God of the Bible and no global Flood, start with an error at the outset and, therefore, fit the data to an incorrect narrative. Is it malicious? I think we all understand very few if any actually believe it's evil concerning the majority. It's just an error in their starting point. For some it is intentional, and we could probably fault them for that, but for most it's not. It's just what they've been taught. Does this mean all the Biblical creationists who accept the Bible over man's word think they're smarter than all the deep time proponents—whether old earth creationists, atheists, or theistic evolutionists? Of course not. It means we have the foundational premise correct and allow the data to fall into place in line with that narrative, while others begin with what I believe is a false premise and allow the data to fall into the narrative of deep time and millions of years of death.
Within his next question, Mr. Roberts accidentally refers to his ideas as “old earth geology.” That means there are alternative ways to interpret the data and he's admitted it. Of course, Christians don't oppose geology but the humanistic interpretation of the evidence. Why interpret the data in such a way that it discredits the Bible when you can easily interpret it in such a way that it agrees completely with the Biblical narrative of earth history? This is such a strange idea to me, but I guess the difference is that I've come to trust the Word of God and believe the very clear, very plain, very obvious teachings of the creation and Flood accounts are true.
Old earth creationism and theistic evolutionism have no Biblical basis, period. I've repeatedly asked for someone to show me where it comes from in the Bible and I'm refused an answer. I completely understand if an atheist or other unbeliever scoffs at the Bible and the historical narrative it gives detailing the origins of the universe and life on earth. I cannot understand why someone who claims a faith in the Bible will reject teachings from the Bible that have been the accepted teaching for thousands of years, because the text is easy enough for a child to read and comprehend. There are differences in how some of us read some passages of Scripture—how pastors are chosen, the roles of women in the Church, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, end times stuff, and much more—but rearranging the historical narrative of creation and the Flood and distorting it into something it doesn't actually even come close to resembling is an assault on the Lord, in my opinion.
I have repeatedly asked people who adhere to such blatantly anti-biblical teachings why they try to marry man's humanist origins myth with solid Christian teachings. I'm frequently told that “that's your interpretation” of the text. I find this such a bizarre idea. God told us what He did and fairly clearly when He did it. The Bible is exceptionally clear on it. He told us step by step with details on what happened when. The nature of the creation and the global extent of the Flood are foundational doctrines of Christianity. They contain within their stories the foundation of nearly every major Christian doctrine. Without them, most of our doctrines become opinions or interesting ideas, reducing the Bible to an inconsistent work of men rather than the perfect Word of God. So, if God, who invented communication, had this narrative written down for not only the Hebrews but also for us, what could possibly make someone think it's confusing or doesn't mean exactly what it says?
Man has been studying nature since his creation. It's in us to do so. But man's understanding of the cosmos, the earth, the forces of nature, and life itself is constantly changing—sometimes getting closer to the truth, sometimes getting further from the truth, and sometimes just stepping to one side or the other. But our understanding of the “Book of Nature” as so many call it is not complete and far from perfect. God's communication to us in His Word is perfect and, for the most part, very clear. Our choices, then, are to reject God's plain teachings that have been accepted for thousands of years, or reject man's currently popular explanation based on very incomplete understandings of nature. For me, the choice is so obvious I'm a little troubled the question even needs to be asked. And why would there be literally not even the slightest hint in Scripture that God created any way other than how He claimed to have created? Why would the Bible repeatedly state wherever it's mentioned that the Flood of Noah's day annihilated the entire planet and killed everyone except the 8 that were on the Ark? Why would we not find so much as a hint that it may have been a local flood or some such other thing? God is not a God of confusion.
I'm always baffled by deep time Christians (OEC or TE) that ask questions like this series by Michael Roberts. I've read several different series of questions by old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists that are supposed to be tough for Bible believers. In reality, they're a great tool for exposing how illogical their theology is (which is far more important than their scientific understanding) and fairly often how confused they are about what the Biblical position actually is. It's concerning that so many will reject something that, to me, seems pretty important while they have very little understanding of it.
The Apostle Paul warns us that a falling away will take place. He goes on to describe how this will happen or what will be involved. This makes me doubt that it's referring exclusively to those who claim Christ but reject His written Word. However, I feel it's reasonable to assume that, like there will be many anti-Christs, there may be many different ways for people to fall away. The slippery road to unbelief or universalism is clear when we're talking about rejection of creation and the global Flood. There are many I've interacted with who, over the years, have slowly become much more like the world and much less like a Christian brother or sister. From their statements on their philosophies or their beliefs, it's harder and harder to distinguish between them and the unbelievers I interact with. This, of course, isn't to say all old earth creationists or theistic evolutionists walk this path. Many do and it saddens me to witness it. There are many sincere believers who are wrong on creation and the Flood. It's not a matter of their salvation, but it can lead to problems as the foundation for their faith is shaky.
Friends, don't be fooled. There is no reason to change the intended meaning and well-accepted meaning of the creation account and global Flood narrative found in the Bible. It makes no sense to try to adopt the humanist origins myth into the Bible's accurate recording of how and when God created everything and how and when He annihilated the planet's surface with a global Flood. Let's be consistent.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
A few weeks ago, I answered the 10th in a series of 10 questions a British old earth creationist (or theistic evolutionist, I'm not sure which) had for his “young earth” creationist brothers. I was happy to find this list of questions as it provides a little something to work with in terms of the discussion between Bible-believing Christians and those who either don't believe it at all or, in this case, say they believe it but that it means something entirely different from what it says. I did a very detailed series concerning “10 Theological Questions No Young Earth Creationist Can Answer” a couple of years ago. This series exposed the lack of knowledge this particular theistic evolutionist had about the Bible and solid, longstanding theology, as well as how confused he was about what theology actually is. Many of his questions were science related or, at the very least, not related to theology at all.
In the case of this current series of questions, they were rather easy to answer, and I was happy to be of service for the man who posed them. I hope he's found some insight into how the Bible reads and why people, such as myself, have a firm faith in the Word of God that isn't a blind faith (like that of the atheist or other non-biblical worldview holder) but a faith that is confirmed repeatedly by observation.
I suppose the point of Mr. Roberts' set of questions was to show people how wrong we Biblical creationists are, but his questions demonstrated quite clearly that the old earth creationist and theistic evolutionist alike have no internal consistency—they get the Bible wrong and the history wrong. (I say history because we all should be able to see why origins “science” isn't science but a discussion of our ideas about historical events.)
He actually supported the Biblical creationists' position frequently while thinking he was solidly defeating it. In his opening statements, he made the claim that “at first glance” the Bible quite obviously teaches a “young earth.” This, of course, depends. I'm not sure what a “young earth” is since I think over 6000 years is a long time, but it's all about perspective. But he's right. The Bible unambiguously teaches that God created everything that exists in this universe in 6 consecutive regular earth days and rested on the 7th day. This isn't just from Genesis but other portions of Scripture as well. This has been the overwhelmingly held position on the interpretation of Scripture for thousands of years. There have been those over the centuries who've entertained other interpretations or even demanded such alternative interpretations were correct, but the vast majority of Church fathers and rabbis for a very, very long time have held quite solidly that the text actually means exactly what it says. There is literally no reason from the text to doubt this is true. So, he sort of shoots himself in the foot before he even gets into his questions.
He correctly states that the Gospel is about Jesus Christ and not the age of the earth. That's why I don't accept the name “young earth” creationist or YEC for the Biblical position. It puts too much emphasis on the age of the earth when, in reality, I don't care at all how old the earth is. However, I do care what the Bible tells us. I believe it's accurate and I refuse to wipe it away simply because the humanist origins myth demands I do so. Oddly, since the age of the earth is apparently unimportant to Mr. Roberts, he puts a lot of time into defending the humanist origins myth and its claims of deep time. If it's so unimportant, why put so much into it? I defend the Word of God and its inerrant nature when I speak of the age of the earth. Old earthers and theistic evolutionists defend the humanist origins myth.
He then asks about the age of the earth and the shape of the globe, seemingly either trying to announce his belief in a flat earth or he's trying to connect something that is a solid Biblical teaching to something that is not so as to make the one appear as absurd as the other. This is unfortunate and makes it difficult to take such people seriously.
He also makes it difficult to take him seriously when he proclaims that there is “no evidence” for a global Flood in all of geology. This, of course, is laughable and it's hard not to poke fun, but I'll resist a little longer. But if there was a global Flood, would there be large sediment layers around the world? Would there be large fossil grave yards around the world? Would we be able to track ecological zones as they're decimated in the fossil record? Would there be Flood legends in something like 200 different people groups around the world if there was a global Flood that left only 8 survivors? Sure, that last one isn't geology, but it's still solid evidence for the event's authenticity. “No evidence?” Please.
He moved on from here to a strange question—possibly his strangest. He muses about how ancient Hebrews could understand geologic time. What a strange thought. Were they too stupid to understand? This question has nothing to do with the subject. It's just an odd idea that doesn't make sense to me at all. But neither does twisting Scripture to mean something it clearly doesn't intend to mean, so there's that.
A very common claim from skeptics who are Christians is that “young earthism” is a new thing. This is obviously a dishonest attempt to discredit the position and it fails miserably. “Young earthism,” which is rightly called Biblical creationism, is what was believed for thousands of years prior to and after Christ's time by the vast majority of believers—Jew and Christian alike. This is evident in Church writings and, frankly, common sense as well as from reading what Old and New Testament writers had to say about it. We must include the global nature of the Flood as well since that is commonly attacked by Christians who don't accept the Genesis narrative as it's written as well. So, Michael Roberts tries to argue that this is the case—that “young earthism” is a new idea. It's true that the apologetic based on the accurate history recorded in Genesis is a newer development, but this actually is strong evidence that very few ever really questioned the plain reading of the text in the past. A few came and went who suggested we look at it differently, but their ideas were not accepted much at all until the humanist origins myth gained traction in the Church. Some have suggested Augustine was not among those who believed in a “recent” creation because he wondered why God wouldn't have created everything instantaneously since He was able to. I guess that's a thought, but it certainly doesn't mean he ascribed to deep time or evolution. It's actually the opposite.
To me, it seems that God created in a particular order because He was making a point and teaching us who He is. The first 3 days of creation are related consecutively to the last 3—meaning what happened on day 1 corresponded to something on day 4, while what was created on day 2 corresponded to something created on day 5, etc. Is this coincidence or design? Of course, I believe it's by design and a brilliant one at that. And this doesn't in any way take away from the historical nature of the narrative at all. Biblical creation has been the norm for centuries—as far back as Genesis was written, I believe. The Hebrews understood it as such and so did the early Church fathers including the Apostles and even Jesus, if we are to accept His teachings as He stated them.
We'll stop here for this week with the wrap-up of Mr. Roberts' 10 questions for his “young earth” creationist brothers and sisters. Next week, we'll finish up with the last few questions he posed. Thanks for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Today we'll be looking at the last question in a series of 10 that Michael Roberts wants to ask “young earth,” aka Biblical, creationists. This week's question is fairly easy and has been partially answered in the previous posts regarding his 10 questions, but we'll get on with it here:
Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
As is my custom, I try to answer short and sweet if possible. This has more than one answer that's fairly obvious, at least to me. The first one is that the last 350 years of geological study disagrees with the Bible's clear teaching on earth's history. It doesn't get any more obvious. However, the second answer is a little more detailed.
Over the last 350 years, geologists frequently have started their observations of the evidence with the wrong assumptions. These assumptions force geologists to interpret the evidence a particular way. Those assumptions are that of deep time and that there was no global Flood as described by the Bible. If we reject the clear teachings of the Word of God, how can we even suggest we are following the God of the Bible? Sure, many of these old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists will say they accept Christ's teachings and the apostles’ teachings, but why? If we reject some of it, what standard do we use to know if we should accept what the Bible says in one place and reject other parts? I'm seriously asking. If the answer is “science,” then we're lost already.
The bottom line is this: if your worldview places the authority of science (or in this case what you mistakenly believe is science) over that of Scripture and you use that so-called science to determine how the Bible is to be interpreted, you've placed something before the authority God has over you. This is especially true if those portions of Scripture you're choosing to reinterpret based on your view of nature are major foundational points of the Christian faith.
Why do old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists reject the creation account and timeline for creation as clearly expressed in the Word of God? It is contrary to the time scales required by the humanist origins myth. There's really nothing more to it. It's easy to understand why an unbeliever would accept such things, but why would a follower of Christ? Generally, again, it has to do with their worldview. They've accepted the idea that the earth is old and will not reject that. There is ample evidence to the contrary, especially the most powerful evidence—the eyewitness account of God's Holy Word. However, they've determined that the Bible wasn't meant to give us these truths. They've decided that men who hated God or, at the very least rejected Him as the Creator, were the ones who would give us the truth about the earth's past. This “truth” these God-deniers have proposed is totally at odds with the clear teaching of Genesis and is necessary for the humanist origins myth, beginning with the Big Bang and following through all the way to the origin of life and, eventually, man's evolution. That's not to say that all of those who accept deep time rather than what the Bible says are evolutionists, but this is fairly common.
Then there is the rejection of the global nature of the Flood found in the early chapters of Genesis. If the old earth creationist or theistic evolutionist believes there was some sort of flood, it is a variety of flood that is inconsistent with the Flood recorded in Genesis 6-9. The Flood found in the book of Genesis is unmistakably global and violently catastrophic, lasting for a year, and many recovery events likely took place for a long time afterwards. This devastation destroyed the surface of the earth, every air-breathing land animal that was not on the ark, and every human being on earth except those found on the ark. Why would believers reject this narrative found in the Bible? Because it answers many of the questions they have concerning geology and other fields of study while destroying their preconceived ideas of deep time. It essentially erases much of their evidence for deep time.
Why are there countless rock layers all over the globe, some of which span entire continents or from one continent to another? There was a global Flood that produced all of these layers of sediment. Why are there billions and billions of dead things in mass graves all over the globe buried in some of these rock layers? There was a global Flood that killed them all. Why are there traditions all over the world that divulge much of the information found in the Bible's narrative of the Flood—cultures that, according to some, would have no connection to the Hebrews or their holy books? There was a global Flood and the people that survived passed down the story from one generation to the next. Why was there an Ice Age at all? Because all the activity that created/maintained a global catastrophe like the Flood warmed the oceans but put a great deal of dust in the air, cooling the air temperature. This with the added moisture was a perfect environment for lots and lots of snow.
Why do some cultures that seemingly have no connection to the book of Genesis trace their lineages all the way back to the sons of Noah or even to Adam? Because these people groups separated at Babel and carried their family trees with them after the Flood. Why are there places and people groups all over the world that have a direct connection to Noah's grandsons or other relatives listed in the Table of Nations? Again, these people were real people who founded these people groups and settled in these places that still have a connection to these ancestors. (More on that can be found here.)
Why are there fossil beds all over the world with mixtures of organisms from geologically different ages—vastly different in many cases—and why are these bone beds never talked about by deep time proponents or evolutionists? We find these because there is no such thing as “geologic time,” because everything was created just over 6,000 years ago. All these organisms, including humans, died together in a global Flood as described by the Bible. Check out the Ashley fossil beds in the southern U.S.
After yet another appeal to authority and appeal to majority, Mr. Roberts then explains that geologists can make mistakes. Isn't that big of him? He downplays this, saying that the mistakes geologists make are small. By whose standard is he suggesting this? If their starting point or preconceived ideas about the history of the earth is off and this forces them to interpret all the evidence incorrectly, how can he possibly suggest their mistakes are small? There's so much to say about his bias here, but I must move on.
His final statement is really just another attempt to sound like he knows what he's talking about but exposes his lack of understanding on how this all works. He says, “So far no young earther has given an argument against geological time which has any validity.” Says who? Mr. Roberts, a retired Anglican priest? I'm sorry to be rude, but who is he? If the numbers he suggests for how many creationist geologists are out there are even near correct (they likely are not, according to Creation Ministries International and others), it's rather impressive how much great material there is out there. The Flood models and theories that have arisen in just the last 40 years are astounding. This is with very few working on it and very little money to support it. How impressive is that?
There is a great deal that not only geologists but many different experts in a variety of fields of study have shown that is supportive of the Bible and its claims about creation, the Flood, and the timelines involved. It's a huge faith booster and confirms that our faith, the faith of the Bible-believing Christian, is supported by the evidence which is all around us. It's not a blind faith like that of the atheist (who looks very much like many old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists regarding these subjects). However, in all that, the ONLY argument that should matter to any follower of Jesus Christ is that found in Scripture. The case is abundantly clear, but I suppose this only matters if we view the Word of God as the final authority.
James Barr of Oxford puts it this way: “Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”
James Barr is not a Biblical creationist at all, yet he knows fully that the text is clear. It's unfortunate that Christians will willfully toss these amazing narratives out because they don't fit their preconceived ideas. They've placed an authority higher than the standard of God's Word which in and of itself reveals their worldview.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
The question Michael Roberts, an old earth creationist, asks for this week's post is a strange one—one I'm not sure why he's asking. But that's sort of been the case for most of his questions for “young earth” or Biblical creationists. If you've been following along, you'll know we've been answering a list of 10 questions that Mr. Roberts has for Biblical creationists. We've covered whether or not the age and shape of the earth are important, if ancient people could understand geologic time, the literal reading of the Bible, animal death, and geologists in general. You can check out the full series here. Today's question is this:
Did Christians oppose old earth geology in the past?
This question is a very important one because of how he's asked it and because of his commentary just below it.
The fact that Mr. Roberts refers to his “slam dunk” evidence as “old earth geology” is impressive. He's at least admitting that there is a difference between the starting assumptions of “old earthers” and “young earthers” who are more accurately called Biblical creationists. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. A “Scriptural geologist” is one who will use the Bible as a starting point and interpret the evidence they uncover through that lens, while an “old earth geologist” will start with deep time as required by the humanist origins myth and interpret the evidence through that lens. This effectively answers the bulk of his questions concerning geology. It very clearly answers his next question, which we'll get into at a later date. But he's likely unwittingly let the proverbial cat out of the bag here by calling it “old earth geology.” I'm grateful he's acknowledged the difference, even if he didn't intend to do so.
I feel like we're answering this question for at least the second time. Last week, we looked at whether or not geologists were adversarial toward Christianity in the past. The obvious answer was “no” since most geologists who are credited with founding the discipline were Biblical creationists and interpreted the evidence in light of that and the global Flood. It wasn't until the late 1700s or 1800s that the thought of abandoning the Bible as a historical source began to get traction. We outlined a bit of that process last time.
This week's answer, however, is quite obviously “yes.” Many throughout the ages have vehemently criticized those who have wandered from the Biblical truth found in the creation and global Flood accounts. It wasn't very common in times long past, but some did come and go. However, many in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, and today oppose those narratives that do not begin with or support the Biblical narrative and time lines. I listed several who did this last week, during the time which we can truly say humanism began to infiltrate the Church in many forms, especially in the way nature was interpreted. So, quite clearly, Christians have opposed the incorrect and corrupted interpretation of geology.
However, Christians haven't opposed geology—just the humanistic interpretations of the facts. Geology was developed by Godly men who looked at earth history (geology) through the Biblical lens. Secular humanists hijacked the study and claimed it as their own about 200 years ago or so. There are still those that oppose these anti-Biblical interpretations, but their numbers are obviously quite small compared to the majority of old earth geologists. As we've stated before: popularity has no bearing on the truth.
So, Michael states that he thought “Christians opposed geology.” This is just a strange statement. It's like saying “People who eat healthy oppose cooking.” No. They may oppose bad meal prep, but they don't oppose making food. Christians don't oppose geology. It's a study. I think geology is fascinating, and I love it. If you're doing it wrong, I may not like your conclusions, but that has no relation to the study as a whole. I love astronomy and cosmology. I think the Big Bang and the explanations its advocates give for what we see in the universe are hysterical, but I don't dislike astronomy and cosmology for what in my opinion are erroneous beliefs of unbelievers. These disciplines and many others were largely developed by Biblical creationists.
This is akin to the bogus argument that pits Christianity against science. That is ridiculous and usually means the person saying such things is either totally ignorant on the debate or is trying to be misleading. Either way, that sort of thing is something I just don't have time for. Let's get into what Mr. Roberts says about this question a little more.
He claims that, after reading hundreds of books, he concluded that most if not all Christians did, in fact, adhere to a “youngish” earth. This sounds like he's answered his own question—question number 7. This question we answered a few weeks ago, but we'll mention it here because of the glaring contradiction in his own statements. “Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?” The answer was “Uh, yeah! Big time.” He seemed to believe it was not, but now he's saying that it was until the humanist origins myth dictated a new interpretation of the data (a new way to view geology) and the Bible (reinterpreting Genesis and other key passages). The evidence we find in nature can EASILY be interpreted to be 100% in line with Scripture as it reads. (By Roberts' own admission, it demands a “young earth” interpretation.) It's not that Christians didn't have “geology to guide them.” Geology was around for a while before humanists hijacked it. What he is saying is that Christians didn't have humanism to make them doubt the Scriptures and its obvious teachings until the 1800s.
He ends by saying, “Very few Christians opposed geology for the last few centuries.” What does that even mean? No one “opposes geology.” That's absurd. We oppose the humanist origins myth which Mr. Roberts has used to interpret the geologic data. That's all.
There are many Bible-believing Christians who love science and glorify God with their work. We can find long lists of scientists who reject the humanist origins myth and its infiltration of modern science and the Church. Many creationist organizations are staffed with such people. I'm talking here about professional scientists, but the same is true for laypersons as well. Many reject the humanist origins myth because they've accepted the Word of God as their first and primary authority. Rejecting humanism is easy if you've done this. However, many have determined to use man's currently popular interpretation of the data, which is shaped by humanism, to rewrite the Bible and tear down centuries of understanding of the Holy Scriptures. The narratives we're discussing here are very straightforward. They make it easy to get the general idea of creation and the global extent of the Flood, but some will reject these very clear teachings based on the currently popular humanist origins myth that's been disguised as science for a very long time.
Don't be sucked in, folks. Christians don't oppose science in any form. We oppose the humanist origins myth and its infiltration, or even hijacking, of science. We're still waiting for “scientists” to catch up with what the Bible has stated for a very long time.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Today, I'll be tackling the 8th question in a series of 10 posed by Michael Roberts, an old earth creationist or possibly a theistic evolutionist. Last week we dealt with the fact that creationism of the Biblical kind (what some call young earth creationism) has overwhelmingly been the traditional view of Christians and Jews since those faiths were a thing. The evidence makes any attempt at rewriting history appear to be parody and not to be taken seriously. This week's question is a little different, although it does try to redefine a few things. Let's take a look.
Were early geologists opposed to Christianity and did they use their geology to undermine belief?
Again, I like the quick and easy answer. The answer is: of course not! As far back as the 200s AD, Tertullian spoke of Flood geology. Chrysostom wrote on it in the late 300s AD. Augustine did so in the late 300s AD to early 400s AD. These men would probably not qualify as “geologists” for most old earth creationists, but Charles Lyell (one of the most infamous deep time geologists of the 1800s) was an attorney. Most evolutionists have no trouble with Darwin even though he was not a scientist of any kind.
However, in terms of geologists, Nicolas Steno, who Mr. Roberts mentions, was a “young earth” creationist and studied geology as such. He is known as the father of modern geology and his principles are still used in geology today. Francis Bacon, the developer of the scientific method, was a major influence on many of the “Scriptural geologists” of the 19th century. These geologists were hated, literally, by many who disagreed with their beliefs concerning geology and earth history. Bacon believed there was a major difference between the laws God used to govern the universe (operational science which can be studied and tested) and how God created the universe and all that is within it (historical science or origins science). Even back then, this debate was heated.
About his belief in a 6000-year-old earth, Steno wrote that sedimentary layers were laid down successively and that they and fossils were the result of the Flood. John Woodward, another geologist of the day, agreed. Isaac Newton's successor, William Whiston, also shared similar beliefs about earth's age (he added 6 years to Ussher's calculation) but believed the Flood may have been the result of comet bombardment, an idea that is still today tossed around by creationists as a portion of the Flood mechanism. Alexander Catcott used geological arguments to defend the Genesis creation narrative and the Flood narrative. Johann Lehmann believed that primary sedimentary layers were the result of creation while those bearing fossils were from the Flood of Noah.
It was really James Hutton who began to tell the tale of uniformitarianism in the late 1700s. His work was criticized heavily by Richard Kirwan who disliked Hutton's ideas because they were atheistic and disagreed with the Genesis narrative. Jean-André Deluc had similar views to Kirwan and accepted the Genesis account and Noah's Flood as real history. Kirwan and Deluc disagreed on some points of Scripture and its creation account and universality of the Flood, but the two were heavily influenced by the Bible in their studies.
The Geological Society of London was established in 1807 and had members who had little knowledge of geology but plenty of money and a desire to learn. However, these men were nearly unanimously deep time proponents and gave hardly a glance to Biblical teachings.
William Buckland was a leading geologist in England who pushed catastrophism solidly and actually taught Charles Lyell. Lyell would eventually be the one who admitted to attempting to “remove Moses from the sciences.” Buckland believed the geologic evidence supported creation and a global Flood, but he leaned towards an old earth for some reason. He published works that made it very clear, even in the 1800s, that the Flood of Noah was a real event and a global catastrophe. Years later, his views changed as others began to work on his interpretation of the Bible and the evidence. You can see the slope here, I hope. We start with the historical document of the Bible and work from there. Over the years, some tend to allow anti-biblical ideas in, resulting in small amounts of compromise. Then we have overt compromise where we accept some but not all the Bible's clear teachings. Then the slope steepens and the journey from half Christian doctrine/half secular doctrine to no Christianity at all is fast and easy. How can any old earth creationist or theistic evolutionist deny this? Buckland is a perfect example.
In the 1830s, Charles Lyell, an attorney, published his works on geology, outlining how he thought geology should be done. He was radically uniformitarian in his approach—an approach we know has been debunked for a long time yet is still advocated by many. Lyell's purpose, according to him because he was “the spiritual saviour of geology,” was in “freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses.” This was tragic. Geologists forsook the catastrophic history of the world and replaced it with a debunked idea of long, slow, gradual processes. All geologic activity was viewed this way for a long time, which is why Roberts makes claims about geologists only finding evidence for an old earth and other such nonsense. More recently, small catastrophes are allowed into the framework of geology, but no one would admit to a global catastrophe like the Biblical Flood.
Isn't it a very telling fact that most Christians had no reason to doubt the Genesis narratives of the creation and Flood until the later centuries, when atheists, naturalists, materialists, and deists were beginning to argue for the earth's existence outside of the Biblical explanation? It's like God miscommunicated how He created the universe to us and waited for God-hating or God-denying people to come up with ways to reject Him in creation so we would know what really happened. This, of course, would mean these people were the source of truth for us rather than God's Holy Word.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
This week we will be addressing old earth creationist (or theistic evolutionist) Michael Roberts' 7th question in a series of 10 for young earth aka Biblical creationists. This question is a great one as it allows me the opportunity to show very clearly how many of these people choose to misrepresent or rewrite history. It's far too common, and this misleading needs to stop. When I read statements like this, my first inclination is to wonder if it's a parody or spoof of some kind. Unfortunately, these sorts of statements are serious and concerning. In reality, this is an attempt to either create the image that deep time has been a traditional view (so they're looking to use an ad populum argument), or they're trying to strip the Biblical creationist of the same status, or both. The funny thing is, as Biblical creationists have said all along, popularity has no weight when it comes to the truth, but the truth is quite clearly on our side. What is Mr. Roberts' question?
Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?
The simple answer here, which I like to provide whenever possible, is: of course it is. However, for years I have seen old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists try to make it sound like Biblical creationism (what they term “young earth creationism”) is a recent development. They try to point to people from the 1800's or as late as the 1960's who have written on or promoted the Biblical age of the earth and/or the global Flood narrative as people who originated the ideas. This is laughable, if we're being nice.
The traditional and most widely-held view throughout all of history has been that God created the heavens and the earth about 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve being created on the 6th day. The Old and New Testaments both seem to have no issues with this. There is no way to use the text of Scripture to come up with anything else. There is no version of the Bible that even hints at the millions or billions of years old earth creationists want and theistic evolutionists require. I stated it previously in this series, but to get us all up to speed as to how the Biblical creationist (rightly called Biblical as our beliefs are drawn directly from the Bible) comes up with a date since creation of about 6000 years, I'll post it here again:
We start with Genesis 5 where we have genealogies recorded for us from Adam to Noah. This is not just a record of who was someone's father, but it also gives the number years in between. This is not like most other genealogies in the Bible which may be incomplete or without these age indicators. This makes them reliable for calculating time to within a year or so. Genesis 7:6 tells us how old Noah was when the Flood started. So, using the years indicated in Genesis 5 which ends with Noah and Genesis 7:6, we reasonably know that the Flood occurred 1656 years after Adam's creation (which was on day 6 of the creation week). This is reasonable but could be off by 10 years or so, depending on how the years actually fall. Genesis 11:10 begins another genealogy with ages assigned to its members from Shem, the son of Noah, to Abraham. Genesis 21:5 tells us how old Abraham was when Isaac was born. Genesis 25:26 tells us how hold Isaac was when Jacob (Israel) was born. Genesis 47:9 tells us that Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt. Using only these numbers, we come up with Jacob moving to Egypt 2298 years after the creation of Adam.
Exodus 12:40 tells us that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years (confirming what God told Abraham about his descendants being in Egypt for 400 years). This puts the Exodus at 2728 years after the creation of Adam. Israel wandered the desert for 40 years, so they entered the Promise Land 2768 years after the creation of Adam.
Now we need to move on to 1 Kings 6:1, which states clearly that it was 480 years after the Exodus that Solomon began working on the Temple of God in Jerusalem. This means Solomon began work on the Temple 3208 years after the creation of Adam (that's over half the history of the world now). Based on the chronologies written for us in the Old Testament (which are too complex to list here), we know that the time from the Temple to the Exile was about 345 years. I say “about” because it is a little less solid a number, but it's certainly not thousands or millions of years off. It's probably within 100 years and likely much closer than that. This puts the Exile of the Israelites at about 3553 years from the creation of Adam. Here we can jump from the timing found in the Bible and put it in our terms. The Exile is generally considered to have occurred in 586 BC. That means the year 1 AD was 4150 since the creation of Adam, plus or minus no more than 50 years! Then we add 2018 years to get us to 2019 and we end up at 6168 years since the creation of Adam, who was made in the image of God on the 6th day of the creation week.
Was it really a small sect of people, or were people on sure or clear on the age of the world throughout history? I have compiled a short list of Jews and Christians. I say “short” because I got tired of recording the names and decided this was enough. There are many more from history.
This list of theologians, scientists, historians etc. who have adhered to a Scriptural reading and have maintained the “young earth” position would include: Julius Africanus, George Syncellus, John Jackson, William Hales, Eusebius, Marianus Scotus, L. Condomanus, Thomas Lydiat, M. Michael Maestlinus, J. Ricciolus, Jacob Salianus, H. Spondanus, Martin Anstey, W. Lange, E. Reinholt, J. Cappellus, E. Greswell, E. Faulstick, D. Petavius, Frank Klassen, Becke, Krentzeim, W. Dolen, E. Reusnerus, J. Claverius, C. Longomontanus, P. Melanchthon, J. Haynlinus, A. Salmeron, J. Scaliger, M. Beroaldus, A. Helwigius, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Clement, Theophilus, Hyppolytus, Jerome, Bede, Henry F. Clinton, Maimonides, John Lightfoot, Ussher, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Augustine, and many many others. You can see many of these names at this link. The Jewish calendar is now at 5779. This is the number of years since creation, according to their traditions.
Has Biblical creation (aka young earth creation) been the traditional view over the centuries? Without question I think we can say, “Absolutely.” It's only been widely doubted as the obvious intent of the text in the last 200 years or so, as secularists hijacked science and have tried to make the history of the world and the universe for that matter a scientific subject to back up the humanist origins myth. Roberts makes the wild claim that people prior to 1800 had no idea about the age of the earth, primarily, it seems, because no one had ever seen a rock layer or a fossil found within one. What Roberts fails to recognize is that as far back as 200 AD, Tertullian was writing about the Flood and how it accounted for marine fossils being found on mountain sides in layers of rock. It wasn't until the 1800's that secular humanists decided to rewrite history and arbitrarily assign ages to rock layers. This is literally what happened. The dates assigned long ago were arbitrary, if we're being honest and designed to remove the Bible from history and science. Flood geology didn't start in 1960, as Roberts claims. Not even close. It's been the norm in Christianity for about 2000 years and in the Jewish faith for much, much longer.
Why would most people over the centuries believe the Bible's clear teaching is a universe and an earth that is 6000 years old? Because that's what the Bible obviously claims. Biblical creationists, old earth creationists, and even theistic evolutionists and secularists for the most part, agree that the text seems quite unquestioningly in support of a 6000-year-old creation. The reason for this is clear, I hope. It's what the text says.
But perhaps Roberts, like most old earth creationists or theistic evolutionists, is confused. He is maybe mixing up Biblical creationism (his term is young earth creationism) with the apologetics used to defend the Bible that focuses on the Genesis account of creation and the age of the earth. It's all too common, really. But the fact that this apologetic didn't exist until recently is a testament to the fact that everyone until recently accepted what the text clearly tells us about creation and the time that creation occurred.
Lita Cosner from Creation.com says it beautifully: “It's true that the specialized area of apologetics devoted to defending the Biblical doctrine of creation and bringing the relevant scientific facts to bear on the topic is a fairly recent development. However, there is a long line of Biblical interpreters, theologians, and scientists who have believed and defended the Biblical doctrine of creation. Indeed, it could be argued that creation apologetics is the logical outgrowth of the same sort of belief in Biblical creation in a context where the doctrine is being specifically attacked and undermined in the church. The lack of a specialized area of creation apologetics in the early church should therefore be taken as evidence of the universality of belief in creation—it simply wasn't even debated.”
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Ever wonder if the Bible is accurate on what it tells us? I mean, if the Bible tells us about history, is it accurate history, or is it made up or an embellishment or something? What about scientific stuff? If the Bible makes mention of things that we would consider today to be in the world of scientific study, would those statements be accurate? The Bible makes a lot of claims concerning God and His creation and what He, as our Maker, expects of us. It tells us Who the Savior is and how to follow Him. He's given us a great many commands and a great many promises. If we are to trust them, would it not make sense that we should be able to trust other things the Bible teaches us? If not, by what standard do we know if something the Bible says is correct?
This week's question from Michael Roberts is one that we touched on the last 2 weeks but we'll try to be more thorough this week. That question is:
Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical?
The Bible hardly speaks of the earth's shape. It does make mention of the fact that that earth is circular (looking at a sphere 2-dimensionally will show it looks like a circle) and suspended on nothing. As previously discussed in another post, the word translated “circle” in Hebrew can and likely should have been translated “vault.” A vault is a 3-dimensional space. A flat disc is not a vault by any stretch. Others have made the point that Jesus tells us that when the Son of man comes, it essentially could be night time for some and day time for others. This would work if the earth were a sphere but not flat. We can also take Job 26:10 into our account of the earth's shape according to the Bible. It says, “He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.” This is referring to a “terminator” (not the cybernetic organism). A terminator is defined as the dividing line between the light and dark part of a planetary body. This is only really possible with a spherical earth.
Roberts claims that the “Bible isn't interested in science.” This is a funny statement to me, really. The Bible is a book. It's probably not interested in anything, really. God, who inspired its writing, I believe is very much interested in 1) being accurate when He communicates, and 2) science which He created. The study of His creation is science. Kepler said that science is thinking God's thoughts after Him.
The Bible isn't a science text. No one has ever claimed otherwise to my knowledge. However, if it speaks on scientific topics, it is accurate. It's not a history book, but if it gives us history, it's accurate. It's not a psychology book, but when telling us about humanity and the thinking of man, it's accurate. God is fairly smart. I say that jokingly, because of course, God is omniscient (all-knowing) and His wisdom is far beyond anything man could ever hope to reason. I doubt God would make sure He inspired men of long ago to write down His thoughts for us, only to tell us things that were not true or accurate because, perhaps, at that time, we just weren't smart enough to grasp it.
Many who believe in evolution assume man is getting more intelligent. The truth is that man is getting less intelligent, not more. Sure, we've added a great deal to our knowledge, but this doesn't mean we're smarter. It just means we have discovered more (unless, perhaps, prior to the Flood, man's intelligence and acquired knowledge was also great, which I believe it was) and built on what those before us discovered. This works into Mr. Roberts' next question:
How could people in 1000 BC grasp the idea of geological time?
I think they would have no trouble understanding the far-fetched idea of “geological time.” How could they not understand it? I guess I have no idea what he's getting at here. How does anyone understand anything? Again, man is not more intelligent than he used to be. Only someone who accepts universal common descent (aka molecules to man evolution) would even consider it possible than man is getting more intelligent. Studies show us we're not, and that's okay. With the ever-increasing number of mutations in our genes, that's probably not the only thing that's not as good as it used to be in humans.
After he poses this strange question, he goes on to explain that geologists began to think the earth was older than “Ussher had suggested.” He then tells us about a botanist rather than a geologist, but that's splitting hairs. Ussher didn't suggest the age of the earth. He calculated it just as I explained a couple of weeks ago. The Bible quite easily explains how to arrive at a date for creation—this date being just over 6000 years ago. It's definitely not just Ussher's suggestion. Many others calculated the date of creation as well.
Roberts then says, “By 1800, most thought the age of the earth was in millions and that included most Christians.” He gives no support for such a statement, which is also at odds with the current belief on the age of the earth held by secularists (which is in the billions of years, not millions). What's funny is, as I showed a few weeks ago in another post, a very large portion of Christians today don't accept evolution as the means by which God created man. Wouldn't it make sense that this would include the time necessary for the humanist origins myth as well? I can't say for sure, but I don't think most Christians give it a lot of thought. If asked, they may say, “Sure, I guess the earth might be billions of years old.” But if questioned about the Bible, the same people may also say, “Sure, the Bible is true. I trust it.” The Bible obviously doesn't say God created over billions of years or billions of years ago. It does give a very clear timeline from Adam to the Exile and we are pretty sure we know when this happened.
His last statement is, “In the 20th Century, radiometric age dating showed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That is based on the physics of radioactivity and has nothing to do with evolution. If the dates are wrong then so is all physics.” Radiometric dating has so many issues. And how were those methods calibrated? If they actually were, was it not by using fossils in rock layers that were arbitrarily given ages by people before who literally had no idea when these organisms lived? We can use radiometric dating to come up with various ages for the same sample. This is if we use different methods on the same rock layers or use the same methods on the same rock layers. They can be wildly erratic. Which dates are accepted? Those that closest fit the preconceived age for the sample. In other words, if the scientists believe a sample is 800 million years old, all dates not in line with that assumption are tossed while those that are close to this age will be accepted. It's pretty common, actually.
This link is an interesting review of a book about dating the age of the earth. This link, from my friend Rod Carty, shows how invalid (not just inaccurate) radiometric dating is. Just about 9% of all the ages arrived at in this example were consistent with the predetermined age of the moon. Which ones get published? Of course, only the results that agree with the predetermined age. If these are the “proven results of science” that Mr. Roberts is relying on rather than the unchanging and perfect Word of God, I'll take the Word of God any time. He claims that radiometric dating is a solid way to calculate the age of the earth and/or its rocks. This is laughable, truly. It is a way to calculate how much of a certain isotope is found in a rock. Any conclusion derived from this information is fanciful at best. All that's going on is determining the amount of a substance and then guessing what that means.
He claims this has nothing to do with evolution, but it has everything to do with it. If evolution were not part of the humanist origins myth, the absolute necessity of deep time would not be there at all. He claims it's just the physics of it. No. In fact, it is not the physics at all, not even accidentally. The truth of the matter is that after analysis of how much of something is in a rock, a lot of guessing and speculation and assuming goes into using those numbers to come up with an age. Where is the physics? He's assumed the physics involved and has no idea if his assumption is valid or not. Nor does he care, I suspect. As long as 9% of the results remain the published results and they support deep time, no one cares to actually think about it for a moment.
Be a thinker. Try not to let the philosophies and religious beliefs of advocates for evolution and deep time interfere with your ability to think critically and honestly. Unfortunately, many times it's hard to get all the data—the whole story. But if you dig deep enough, sometimes the information is there. Have faith, dear reader. Man's arrogance and his skewed understanding of God's creation and how he interprets it is no match for the perfect Word of God. Stay tuned.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
In last week's post, I began answering a question by Michael Roberts, an old earth creationist or possibly a theistic evolutionist on the age of the earth. An old earth creationist may believe that God created all that there is fairly like it is now, but he would believe this took place a much longer time ago than the Bible indicates. There are various versions of it that I won't get into here. Most reject the clear teaching of the Bible as to when God created the universe and us, and they also reject the Genesis narrative on the global Flood. Again, there are various versions of this Flood rejection as well. A theistic evolutionist goes much further than this, rejecting that God created the heavens and the earth at all like He claims to have done in the Bible. He would also not accept that man was created special or that life was created fully formed and functional during creation. They would generally accept evolution (cosmic and then biological) as the means by which God created the universe and life. Mr. Roberts wrote this piece listing 10 questions he'd like to ask “young earth” creationists (what would appropriately be called a Biblical creationist). I am fulfilling his wish in answering his questions.
The question we started to answer last week concerned the importance of the age and shape of the earth. Are they important to us as Christians? Well, not in our day-to-day living, I suspect, and not really even to our Gospel message. However, they do have some weight. I would say the age of the earth is weightier here simply because the Bible doesn't speak a great deal about the shape of the earth. However, it gives us a lot to go on concerning the age of the earth. I covered that in detail last week.
Why does it matter? The short answer is if the Bible tells us something, God thought it was important enough to have written and to preserve for us for thousands of years. If the Bible gives a clear timeline as to when God created the heavens and the earth, rest assured it's accurate and true. Rejecting this for any reason is to reject the very Word of God and to make Him out to be a liar or just incompetent. Neither of those is possible, really. There have been a large number of attempts over the last 150-200 years to reinterpret the Bible to make it fit with the “proven results of science” as Mr. Roberts puts it. Unfortunately, the “science” he's talking about isn't science at all. It's philosophy and it's based on a worldview at odds with the Biblical worldview. It goes against the long-accepted (and I would say obvious) interpretation of the Bible's creation and Flood accounts.
Michael finishes his statements on this by saying something so inaccurate and so genuinely bogus, it makes me cringe to think people actually accept his statements without really thinking them through or investigating them. He says, “For 250 years, geologists have only found evidence for an ancient earth and none for a young earth.” In my opinion, this is a terrible statement to make for several reasons. He will undoubtedly resort to an appeal to authority in defense of such a foul declaration (his own authority and that of others) but this is smoke and mirrors. Let me explain.
Geologists have not “only found evidence for an ancient earth.” Geologists have certainly not been unable to find evidence for a “young earth.” As I've stated many times, 6000 years is actually quite ancient, and this supports the Biblical creationist's contention all along that it's a matter of perspective. Perspective in this case is primarily with the facts geologists discover. Do they “only” support an earth billions of years old? Of course not. Facts simply just are facts. They don't support anything on their own. We use them to support or refute something, but that's what WE are doing—not what the facts are doing. Facts are inanimate and have no ability to say anything. We, as their interpreters, make them say something.
Notice Mr. Roberts offers exactly zero examples of the evidence that he's asserting supports an old earth. Not one example. Let's take a quick peek at geology as a study for a moment to see if his claim holds true. In a writing of mine from early 2014, I note:
Nicolas Steno is credited with 3 defining principles of geology. However, many had described different geologic features and even some processes for centuries before Steno. It was assumed for centuries that the Flood was at least partially responsible for many geologic features. Modern day geologists who are young earth creationists would include Andrew Snelling, Ph.D., Steve Austin, Ph.D., John Morris, Ph.D., Kurt Wise, Ph.D., and Emil Silvestru, Ph.D.
You can read more on Steno here. Tertullian, a Christian writer from the early 3rd century AD, explained that geologic formations, especially noting those with marine fossils trapped in them, were the result of the global Flood of Noah's day.
In another writing on the subject:
For a very long time, many in the Western world believed the geologic column and the fossils found in it were a result of the Flood of Noah’s day. This is demonstrable since at least the early 200’s AD. However, belief in a global catastrophe that changed the planet forever was believed in since the time it occurred. A literal reading of Genesis 1-11 in the Old Testament would give us too many references to list in a blog post. Catastrophism, the belief that the current geologic features of the earth are primarily the result of catastrophes, was a long held view—for centuries, in fact. It was the belief held by many geologists up through the 17th and 18th centuries, including the arguable founder of modern geology, Nicolas Steno. This began to change over a period of time and in 1830, a man by the name of Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology which outlined the idea of uniformitarianism. This is the belief that “the present is the key to the past,” which just means geologic features we see today came about through current rates of geologic change.
We know without question that current geological features like sedimentary layers, especially folded layers, canyons, beaches, sand dunes, mesas, pediments, laccoliths and batholiths, dikes and scarps, etc. can easily be accounted for via catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism. That's not to say catastrophism explains ALL geological features, but it certainly can explain a great many of them. In a lot of cases, a catastrophe is a much better explanation. But the interpretation is what we're interested in here. So many, including Mr. Roberts it seems, fail to recognize how important one's worldview is in determining what evidence tells us.
It's fairly obvious that evidence can be interpreted a variety of ways. Look at a court of law. There are almost always at least 2 very different sides to the same story—using the same evidence. Look at Super Bowl LIII. Many thought it was a terrible game—too boring. Others didn't like the outcome. Others loved the outcome and/or thought it was an exciting game. Everyone who watched had the same evidence—the same facts. They all watched the same game. How do they all come up with different interpretations of the game if the “evidence speaks for itself”? This is no different than a scientist who has been indoctrinated into the ideas of deep time and evolution who views evidence differently than someone who holds to a more traditional view of the evidence (since most branches of science were founded by Biblical creationists, including geology as noted above). This is why Mr. Roberts claims there is ONLY evidence for an “ancient earth” and “none for a young earth.” He's indoctrinated and can't see outside the tiny box he's created for God's creation. The evidence is there for a younger earth and many geologists have recognized it as such; it just needs the proper interpretation.
I suppose another response to the statement that geology only affirms an ancient earth is, “So what?” My confidence is placed in the Word of God, which is perfect, and I believe God made no mistakes when He had it penned. If a geologist's interpretation of nature varies greatly from the clear writings found in Scripture, that geologist either needs to change his interpretation or he is not to be trusted with such information. I simply say that because he is only a man, a man consumed by the Fall, and he's viewing a creation that is cursed and was ravaged by a global Flood. And he's viewing that world through the glasses of secularism and the humanist origins myth. This won't do, especially if this person claims to know and love Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior—how much more if he claims to respect the Bible as the Word of God!
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
We are hip deep in answering 10 questions Mr. Michael Roberts wanted to ask Biblical creationists. I stumbled upon this writing online and decided it would make a nice series to write about. We covered Mr. Roberts' intro here and his first question (Is the Gospel more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?) here. This week's question is sort of interesting because, by itself, it's a good question. But with his commentary on it, he quickly erodes the question into false statements and nonsense. Let's look at it:
Does the age of the earth – or its shape – matter to a Christian?
I don't think the age of the earth is on the forefront of every Christian's mind all the time. In fact, I'd wager that most don't pay that much attention to it. I don't think they care about the shape of the earth either as the Bible isn't perfectly clear on that, but it does give us some clues about it. Isaiah 40:22 tells us that “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth ...” The word translated circle here can easily be rendered sphere or, as the link here indicates, vault. I doubt a flat disc would be considered a vault. I'm not sure if Mr. Roberts is eluding to being a flat earther, but it makes no difference really. The earth's shape is mentioned in the Bible, but we're not given complete specifics on it. However, we are told very specifically when creation occurred. I fear his combining these two different things into a question are his way of equating the two, which really would show how disinterested he is in functioning as a follower if Christ. But that's another topic.
I mentioned that the poser of this question was going to make some false statements. This is seen in his remark that the Bible makes no indication of the earth's age. As stated above, it actually clearly states when creation occurred. I'll outline that below.
The Bible obviously doesn't give a date for creation. That would be impossible, actually. It does, however, give us exceptionally easy clues to follow so we can figure out when the creation and Flood took place. Here's how it works:
We start with Genesis 5 where we have genealogies recorded for us from Adam to Noah. This is not just a record of who was someone's father, but it also gives the number years in between. This is not like most other genealogies in the Bible which may be incomplete or without these age indicators. This makes them reliable for calculating time to within a year or so. Genesis 7:6 tells us how old Noah was when the Flood started. So, using the years indicated in Genesis 5 which ends with Noah and Genesis 7:6, we reasonably know that the Flood occurred 1656 years after Adam's creation (which was on day 6 of the creation week). This is reasonable but could be off by 10 years or so, depending on how the years actually fall. Genesis 11:10 begins another genealogy with ages assigned to its members from Shem, the son of Noah, to Abraham. Genesis 21:5 tells us how old Abraham was when Isaac was born. Genesis 25:26 tells us how hold Isaac was when Jacob (Israel) was born. Genesis 47:9 tells us that Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt. Using only these numbers, we come up with Jacob moving to Egypt 2298 years after the creation of Adam.
Exodus 12:40 tells us that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years (confirming what God told Abraham about his descendants being in Egypt for 400 years). This puts the Exodus at 2728 years after the creation of Adam. Israel wandered the desert for 40 years, so they entered the Promise Land 2768 years after the creation of Adam.
Now we need to move on to 1 Kings 6:1, which states clearly that it was 480 years after the Exodus that Solomon began working on the Temple of God in Jerusalem. This means Solomon began work on the Temple 3208 years after the creation of Adam (that's over half the history of the world now). Based on the chronologies written for us in the Old Testament (which are too complex to list here), we know that the time from the Temple to the Exile was about 345 years. I say “about” because it is a little less solid a number, but it's certainly not thousands or millions of years off. It's probably within 100 years and likely much closer than that. This puts the Exile of the Israelites at about 3553 years from the creation of Adam. Here we can jump from the timing found in the Bible and put it in our terms. The Exile is generally considered to have occurred in 586 BC. That means the year 1 AD was 4150 since the creation of Adam, plus or minus no more than 50 years! Then we add 2018 years to get us to 2019 and we end up at 6168 years since the creation of Adam, who was made in the image of God on the 6th day of the creation week.
Does the Bible say when God created the heavens and the earth? Well, actually, quite clearly it does. It’s not possible to give us a date, but it does give us a timeline—a very clear timeline with years attached to give us a very discernible time frame for when God began creation. For Mr. Roberts to indicate the Bible is not clear on the matter only exposes his desire for the Bible to not be clear on the matter. It is, in fact, very clear and people have calculated the years since creation for many centuries. It's not a new idea by any means. In fact, it's a much more recent idea that the earth is billions of years old.
Mr. Roberts goes a step further, showing us his hand when he says, “to go against the proven results of science is simply folly.” This statement says so much about where his authority lies and what he truly thinks of the Bible. The “proven results” of science are ever changing—being modified as more data comes in. However, we know for a fact that if you use 3 different methods to date a rock or fossil, you'll get 3 different ages—sometimes wildly different. This is true if we use the same test multiple times on samples as well. The “proven results” of science are far from a sure thing. In fact, they're based on numerous assumptions and built on the presupposition that such information is true prior to it being verified. The circular reasoning here is astounding and for an intelligent person to not even question it is disappointing to say the least and also a little alarming.
My advice here: if you read the Bible and get a VERY clear message (as we do with the creation account and the timing of it) and you “read” nature and get a very different idea, you've read one of these two things incorrectly. We know this because you cannot have 2 conflicting ideas at the same time. However, one of these messages is from God and is captured in His perfect Word. The other is a fallen man's biased (there is no denying bias) interpretation of a fallen world that was ravaged by a global catastrophe that wrecked the entire surface of the planet (as is stated numerous times in the Bible). It would be wise to follow Martin Luther's statements here when he said, “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”
In other words, if what you think you're seeing in nature doesn't line up with the clear teaching of Scripture, you'd be better off accepting what the Bible clearly states rather than trying to make it fit what you, a fallen human being viewing a cursed world, sees in nature.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Last week, I began a series in response to a set of 10 questions an old earth creationist (possibly a theistic evolutionist) named Michael Roberts wanted to ask young earth creationists (what is appropriately referred to as a Biblical creationist). I was happy to find this set of 10 questions to help him on his path to understanding the Word of God and the Truth found in it. You can find that writing here, but I will be directly quoting his questions in these writings if you don't want to read ahead.
I find it necessary to get into the discussion here with this non-Biblical creationist because he appears to be not very knowledgeable on the subject of creation—especially from a Biblical stance rather than a stance based on the humanist origins myth. I know this because he's posted things in groups online that are exceptionally weak strawman arguments against Biblical creation, including nonsensical things like this picture of the Ark:
Of course, no creationist that I know thinks this is what happened and if he knew anything at all about what he's rejecting, he'd know how foolish it makes him look to suggest such a thing. My experience with old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists is that most, if not all, are extremely ignorant on what the Bible actually says about creation and, therefore, what Biblical creationists believe. They create numerous strawmen so they can knock them down, appearing to vindicate the erroneous teachings of deep time and/or evolution. Michael Roberts is no different. Some will often claim that they were once “young earthers” and therefore know all the ins and outs, but if that's true, they had no idea what the idea was they have since rejected. I feel many of them do know what the case for Biblical creation is, but they intentionally distort it in their presentations on origins so they can make it look foolish. This is truly the worst type of error—an intentional one. It is deception and is not the way a believer should conduct themselves. I don't know which Mr. Roberts is, or perhaps he's both. However, I've chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt and rather than assume he's lying, I've decided he must just not know what he's talking about. But let's look at his first question. It is, in fact, an area we can agree on and it's a good place to start.
Can we start by agreeing that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?
Sure thing! The good news of Jesus Christ is that death has been defeated and sin no longer has us as slaves because of what the Son has done. This is what life in the Garden of Eden was like at the beginning and we're told it will return to this in the future. However, the Gospel message is exclusively the result of the creation, fall, and curse. What are we to be saved from? The sin nature which is part of every human heart as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Why? Because they rebelled against God who gave them instructions on how He wanted them to live. They had one rule and they broke it. They passed this on to us. Hence, all of creation is cursed. Work would be harder. Child birth for women would be harder. The ground was cursed. Death would result eventually. And why do we care what God says about all this? Because He's the Creator—He's the one who has a say in it. Who else can demand a standard of living but the one who created us and fashioned each of us? The Gospel hangs on whether or not Genesis is true. If Adam isn't a real man and was not “from the beginning,” then Jesus need not be real either. You see, one is called the first Adam while the other is called the last Adam. In the first, we all die. In the last, we all can live. If Genesis is true, then we have a reason for a Savior, who was actually mentioned in the Genesis account.
In short, the Rock of Ages rests comfortably on a foundation of Genesis from the Biblical perspective. From the old earth and theistic evolution perspective, it's more difficult to make sense of it. This is why it's easier to find old earth creationists and even more so theistic evolutionists who don't believe Christ is the only Way but simply a way to the Father. They join Oprah Winfrey in espousing Christianity as their faith but allow for others to have their own truth as well. I'm not saying Roberts is like this. But to be sure we understand what I'm saying: There are many great theologians and scientists and wonderful Christian people who believe in deep time, whether that means old earth creation in one of its various forms or theistic evolutionism. However, straying from the foundation of the solid and easily understood message of creation, sin, the fall and curse, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel means it's that much easier to deny other major doctrines as well. This is no slippery slope fallacy but simply my observation and that of many others.
There are people who repeatedly say things like this question from Michael Roberts—isn't the important thing Jesus? But these people will also repeatedly attack Biblical creationists and the Bible in general while they hold hands with atheists and other God-hating individuals, using their ideas and beliefs to attack “fellow Christians.” This must stop! My zeal for this topic stems from my desire to show people the Truth of Jesus Christ. I see young people being drawn away from the faith because they accept the unscientific premise that we can date the age of the earth or rocks or the universe, and these dates conflict with what the Bible very clearly teaches. So, my desire is out of love for people that they come to find Jesus Christ and know Him deeply as Creator, Lawgiver, and Savior/Redeemer as well as the soon coming King. They need to know they can trust His Word. But the concern from many (I'm sure not all) old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists appears to be based on arrogance and the desire to win a debate. They don't mock and ridicule Biblical creationists because we don't believe God's Word; they mock us and claim we're ignorant or stupid or gullible because we see past the facade of deep time and all that comes with it. They rail on us because we disagree with them and their “science.” It masquerades as science when it's not. We express concern for the souls of the lost while they express anger for us not agreeing with the humanist origins myth.
Yes, the Gospel Truth is far more important than each of the details of it—but they all must be in place for the Gospel to even make sense. We need a Savior because man fell away 6000 years ago, probably shortly after the creation. God created. Man sinned. There were consequences for this rebellion and we're still dealing with that today. Jesus Christ is the answer in all this! And we're stuck with this very simple question: are we going to believe God Almighty or not? There is literally no indication from Genesis that it should be read as anything but a historical narrative. And if the beginning is something other than actual history, when does that stop? There is no indication in the text that something changes, so really it's either all true or it’s all just some myth that doesn't have any truth to it. Which is it? I prefer to let the context tell me. That context is perfectly in line with reading it as history, and the rest of Scripture confirms this. In short, the old earth creationist and theistic evolutionist have no Biblical basis for their beliefs on origins at all—none. And the Gospel and the Rock of Ages stands firmly on a literal reading of Genesis. Mr. Roberts claims that “The center of the Gospel is the crucified and risen Christ, and everything in the Old Testament leads up to that,” but he doesn't seem to believe that as he's thrown out the core of the Old Testament and its foundations.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
